Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[Grenartia]

Dialectical materialism is a scientific method [...]

Citation needed. From all I've seen of it, its simply just another philosophy, and from self-proclaimed Marxists, I've seen it as little more than the same dogma most of them claim to be against.

There is no discrepancy between believing in an a supreme being and wanting to figure out the scientific inner workings of creation. If that was impossible, than how do you explain religious scientists?

I actually totally agree with this, as a religious scientist.

How can you be an "anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist" and believe in a religion.

> anti-revisionist.
> "scientific."

"I've found this group or particles act differently than our previous model predicted, we should investig-" shot
"We don't tolerate this sort of revisionism to the laws of physics."

t. no scientist ever.

No good scientist. But yes.

New Atheists also sound like the Christians who say you can't be gay and believe in Jesus when they spout nonsense like this.

Sure, you can believe in Jesus and be gay, but if you don't recognize your homosexuality as a sin and repent, you're not going to heaven.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but its not a sin.

It's not that hard. And in fact not even that uncommon.

“The material, perceptual universe, to which we ourselves belong, is the only.reality, and.. our consciousness and thought, however supernatural they may seem, are only evidences of a material bodily organ, the brain. Matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is only the highest product of matter. This is, of course, pure materialism.”

It is a pretty much a textbook case of cognitive dissonance. Marxist-Leninist regimes such as the USSR were very aggressive in pushing their materialism in the fields of science, 1. this resulted, for example, in the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics being rejected as "idealistic," and 2. that accusation being a good way for your opponents in scientific fields to try and discredit you.

1. Source?

2. Are you talking about in Soviet-esque states, or in scientific fields in general?

[Socialista Mozambique]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but its not a sin.

Sorry to break it to you, but homosexuality is unnatural in the eyes of God. No amount of weaseling around can escape that.

http://www.livingout.org/the-bible-and-ssa

[Albrenia]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but its not a sin.

Sorry to break it to you, but homosexuality is unnatural in the eyes of God. No amount of weaseling around can escape that.

http://www.livingout.org/the-bible-and-ssa

They may mean that 'being' gay is not a sin, but 'doing' gay is.

[Socialista Mozambique]

They may mean that 'being' gay is not a sin, but 'doing' gay is.

Yes, yes it might. Homosexual behavior is explicitly looked down upon, but I don't know any mentions of homosexual attractions, other than lusts.

Also, to keep in topic, what do you leftists think of Bakunin?

[Grenartia]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but its not a sin.

Sorry to break it to you, but homosexuality is unnatural in the eyes of God. No amount of weaseling around can escape that.

http://www.livingout.org/the-bible-and-ssa

Sorry, but you and your source have been misled.

[Socialista Mozambique]

Sorry, but you and your source have been misled.

What a cop out.

I can't believe you're convincing yourself when you resort to calling someone and their sources 'misled'.

[Aillyria]

Sorry, but you and your source have been misled.

What a cop out.

I can't believe you're convincing yourself when you resort to calling someone and their sources 'misled'.

Homosexuality isn't a sin, that's made up BS.

[Socialista Mozambique]

Homosexuality isn't a sin, that's made up BS.

Not talking about Islam, not sure on the status of homosexuality there. But it's pretty clear in the Bible that homosexuality is unnatural in the view of God, and that it takes some serious conjecture to not acknowledge that. However, there is debate on whether homosexual attractions (not lusts) are sins.

[War Gears]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but its not a sin.

That's correct, because Christianity isn't true.

1. Source?

2. Are you talking about in Soviet-esque states, or in scientific fields in general?

1. https://books.google.com/books?id=1nA3u ... &q&f=false

2. Soviet republics, I don't know any Western state where a Berkeleyan has lost their job, or been shot. Freedom of ideas and all.

[Socialista Mozambique]

That's correct, because Christianity isn't true.

I guess that works too.

[War Gears]

Sorry to break it to you, but homosexuality is unnatural in the eyes of God. No amount of weaseling around can escape that.

http://www.livingout.org/the-bible-and-ssa

Sorry, but you and your source have been misled.

The source lists a lot of Old Testament and New Testament verses that condemn homosexuality. It seems more like you're misled.

[Socialista Mozambique]

The source lists a lot of Old Testament and New Testament verses that condemn homosexuality. It seems more like you're misled.

I mean, I can guess what this is, but thanks anyway.

[Aillyria]

Homosexuality isn't a sin, that's made up BS.

Not talking about Islam, not sure on the status of homosexuality there. But it's pretty clear in the Bible that homosexuality is unnatural in the view of God, and that it takes some serious conjecture to not acknowledge that. However, there is debate on whether homosexual attractions (not lusts) are sins.

I wasn't talking about Islam, I was talking about Christianity. I read the Bible as much as I do the Quran.

[Socialista Mozambique]

I wasn't talking about Islam, I was talking about Christianity. I read the Bible as much as I do the Quran.

Ehhh... sure, I'd like to hear your thoughts on Leviticus 18 & 20, Romans 1:18-32, etc.

[Grenartia]

Sorry, but you and your source have been misled.

What a cop out.

I can't believe you're convincing yourself when you resort to calling someone and their sources 'misled'.

I just don't feel like arguing with somebody who refuses to be convinced otherwise. I have far better and far more entertaining things to do with my time.

[Socialista Mozambique]

I just don't feel like arguing with somebody who refuses to be convinced otherwise. I have far better and far more entertaining things to do with my time.

I can understand that, but you haven't tried to convince me in anyway. Ironically your description suits you better, considering I've provided evidence which you just waved away as being misled.

[Grenartia]

I wasn't talking about Islam, I was talking about Christianity. I read the Bible as much as I do the Quran.

Ehhh... sure, I'd like to hear your thoughts on Leviticus 18 & 20, Romans 1:18-32, etc.

Mistranslated and taken out of context.

[Socialista Mozambique]

Mistranslated and taken out of context.

Isn't it a little convenient to say that's mistranslated (when it's not, the source even delves into the Greek words used and their meanings) but other parts are not?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Mistranslated[...]

In what why has the Catholic Church, and the several other churches that make up Christianity for that matter, mistranslated it?

[...]taken out of context.

[War Gears]

I just don't feel like arguing with somebody who refuses to be convinced otherwise.

Have you considered that's because your arguments are bullshit?

[Grenartia]

Mistranslated and taken out of context.

Isn't it a little convenient to say that's mistranslated (when it's not, the source even delves into the Greek words used and their meanings) but other parts are not?

I mean, it pretty much is mistranslated (intentionally or not, since its nearly impossible to translate from Koine Greek to Modern English, through all of the intermediary languages and dialects and the shifts thereof, without changing the meanings of a lot of words). The primary reason to deny that is to avoid cognitive dissonance with a worldview that requires taking the Bible literally. Which, is patently absurd, since at one point, it gives the value of pi as simply 3 (in addition to numerous other inaccuracies that are introduced when taking it literally).

[Aillyria]

What a cop out.

I can't believe you're convincing yourself when you resort to calling someone and their sources 'misled'.

I just don't feel like arguing with somebody who refuses to be convinced otherwise. I have far better and far more entertaining things to do with my time.

I'm sure you have sources that can disarm their interpretation, post them. Unless you have already....

Mistranslated and taken out of context.

Isn't it a little convenient to say that's mistranslated (when it's not, the source even delves into the Greek words used and their meanings) but other parts are not?

I didn't interpret those verses as necessarily condemnation of homosexuality, per se, more so on lusting and promiscuity. Though it could definitely be taken as being anti-homosexual.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Before this continues, wouldn't this conversation be better suited for the CDT?

[Socialista Mozambique]

I mean, it pretty much is mistranslated (intentionally or not, since its nearly impossible to translate from Koine Greek to Modern English, through all of the intermediary languages and dialects and the shifts thereof, without changing the meanings of a lot of words). The primary reason to deny that is to avoid cognitive dissonance with a worldview that requires taking the Bible literally. Which, is patently absurd, since at one point, it gives the value of pi as simply 3 (in addition to numerous other inaccuracies that are introduced when taking it literally).

How can you even be Christian? What... what even is this logic? What do you take literally in the Bible, what is legitimate teaching and what is just a fairy tale?

[War Gears]

The primary reason to deny that is to avoid cognitive dissonance with a worldview that requires taking the Bible literally.

There have been countless Church fathers and saints from the time of Augustine who have explicitly stated that the Bible should not be taken literally. It's why you have popes who accept evolution and climate change, or Catholic scientists. Not being a Biblical literalist is not the same thing as actively ignoring what it condemns as a sin. At that point, you might as well just throw the Bible out and come up with your own holy text.